11.30.2016 08:47 AM

Pipeline

There’s this take on pipelines, as related by the Ventures:


 

And there’s this take which I would have related on CP24 if they hadn’t cancelled to talk about the Ontario Auditor-General’s report instead:

  • pipelines are safer than transporting via rail, cf. Lac Megantic
  • pipelines have 500 per cent fewer accidents/spills than the alternatives, cf. this
  • our economy is in big trouble without ’em, cf. this op-ed
  • as long as we have oil and gas in everyday life, we need ’em, cf. this website
  • this ain’t about politics – New Democrats, Liberals and Conservatives all agree we need ’em, cf. this

Does that mean every proposed pipeline should be approved? Of course not.  Trudeau appropriately turned down Northern Gateway, just as the Dakota Access Pipeline should be (but won’t be, by a racist president-to-be).

Oil is being transported via rail right through Toronto neighbourhoods, including two blocks from my house, several times a day.  I’d like that to stop, thanks.

Oh, and good luck in getting the Ventures lick out of your head.  It’s a keeper.

 

 

20 Comments

  1. Ron says:

    “as long as we have oil and gas in everyday life”

    Wow ! Does this mean CEPA advocate alt entry solutions ?? Who knew !

  2. Daryl gordon says:

    The Dakota situation is all about money. The native band protesting had every opportunity to participate in the regularity process but didn’t attend any meetings then after the fact demanded millions.

    RE racism: the contested river crossing area already has several pipelines and utility crossings so how all of a sudden is it now a sacred burial ground.

    Protesters here and in the US are organized and funded by groups like the Tides Foundation , Sierra, Greenpeace etc all with their own agendas. Playing the race card is just a tactic. Ad some useful clueless celebrities and away you go.

  3. Jim Keegan says:

    Love that song, which I will always associate with the American Graffiti 2 Vietnam scene where the Huey helicopter was headed toward the hot landing zone.

    And your comments on the real pipelines are pretty much on the money, although he should have OK’d Northern Gateway as well.

  4. The Doctor says:

    Warren, rational arguments like yours don’t matter. The environmental movement has singled out pipelines as their pariah trophy kill of the 21st century. Just like they did with nuclear energy in the last century. All benefits are ignored, and only the drawbacks are mentioned (in histrionic, hyperbolic, catastrophic terms, of course).

    • doconnor says:

      I don’t know why people are blockading pipelines when they should be blockading coal power plants.

      If we where successfully fighting greenhouse gas emissions then the oil sands would already be shutting down because it is the most expensive oil and generates the most emissions in processing.

      • The Doctor says:

        There are lots of other examples. Why are the enviros not going hard after the cattle/meat industry with anything remotely approaching their zeal for going after pipelines, given the huge GHG methane production from that industry? Why aren’t they blockading cattle ranches? The meat counters at Safeway? More to the point, if their grievance is with the oil sands, why don’t they directly go after oil sands projects? Why don’t they actually blockade the sites? It’s just weird, this monomaniacal fixation on pipelines, when there are all kinds of players in the GHG production picture.

      • doconnor says:

        Here is the data for that story is based on:

        https://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/crude-oil/2013-crude-ave-ci.pdf

        It isn’t the worst, but much worse then most sources.

  5. dave constable says:

    For me the odds are that climate scientists are more credible than are the fossil fuel industry pr firms and the people who buy repeat their stuff.
    So I figure that our burning of fossil fuels into the atmosphere is causing degradation to our atmosphere and oceans.
    Governments, fossil fuel firms and their backers are for continued, and increased degradation of our air and oceans.

    The fossil fuel industry’s pr firms had a great success when they switched the discussion from adverse climate change to pipelines versus rail lines. It is possible there are people in other parts of Canada who are unaware that here on the wet coast, caution about coastal waters and tanker traffic are important. For example, on the rejection of the Northern Gateway, the argument is that the waters up there are no place for tanker traffic. If that is so why are other waters okay for tanker traffic. Heard of Bella Coola recently?

    As I type this, Notley is on tv saying that there is no increase in GHG emissions from these projects. Thsi argument is often made – that oil patch and distribution emissions are very low. What they never include is the emissions when the stuff is burned. The air has no borders.

    Lastly, I realize the only honest thing for me to do is refuse to use any petroleum products in my life if I want to suggest we reduce fossil fuel burning to address adverse climate change. But that approach doesn’t work. When I was complaining about water safety in a former city I lived in, I quit drinking water. The approach doesn’t work. It just doesn’t.

  6. bluegreenblogger says:

    There is a reason the Governments love Oil money. Because it is not taken from any voters pockets, and it arrives in huge gobs. To claim that Canada NEEDS it is simply not true. The entire Oil and Gas sector is about 2.5% of our economy. yet, it delivers $tens of billions for program spending, or funky Gazebo’s. In practical terms, it crowds out actual people making goods and services through a dramatic appreciation in the CAD, so workers and employers do actually bear the costs, while governments and resource extractors earn the returns. Ontario, Quebec, and Manitoba paid the highest costs over the past decade or two. Without Oil, Governments would have to go through all the work of milking a real, and complicated economy, instead of just cashing royalty cheques and building gazebos. If we are being honest, then this is what pipelines really mean to us.

    • The Doctor says:

      I see. So if the oil industry forms part of your national economy, you don’t have a “real” economy.

      Any other industries out there that are also not “real”?

      • bluegreenblogger says:

        In any country, resource exports exert an influence in direct proportion to their share of exports. You know, exchange and bond markets clearing and all that jazz. The extreme cases are places like Norway, Holland, and Saudi Arabia. One of those countries manages it very well, one muddles through OK, and the last, the Saudi’s do not produce any goods or services for export whatsoever. (Except oil and petrochemicals). Fact is, it does not take people to extract most resources in bulk, and the exchange they generate is a mixed blessing.

  7. bluegreenblogger says:

    Wow, I just watched that clip again. I am trying to think where I have heard this sound before, thanks for posting.

  8. Charlie says:

    http://edmontonjournal.com/business/energy/approval-of-alberta-pipelines-leaves-opposition-in-a-tough-spot

    Honestly, I was more intrigued by the reaction to the pipeline than the actual announcement.

  9. Elsie Marley says:

    All I know about the integrity of oil companies and their pipelines has been taught to me by the oil corporations over the past 75 years – all of which has tainted & contaminated not only me but the land and waterways I cherish. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

    This clip pretty much nails it.

    https://youtu.be/eZrr-4DCZL8

  10. dave constable says:

    I am pretty sure the bean counters in both the fossil fuel extraction industry and the distribution industry have reported to the board room how much they are going to make on a deal like Kinder Morgan expansion. However, that number is not mentioned to the public. Other numbers are mentioned ( umpteen zillion jobs, fantastic millions of economic activity, and so on) but not what the industry is going to get.

  11. Dan Calda says:

    Oh my…listening to our Official Opposition today…lord give me strength. The pretzel or straight jacket is getting tight
    Justin threw a big time life raft to Ms Notley…whilst kneecapping Jason Kenney.

    Whats not to like?

    Legally and Constitutionally…that pipeline may never get built….and by the time all the hurdles are crossed…it will not be economically viable.

    Well played JT.

    • Bill Templeman says:

      Dan Calda, you might be right. Trudeau could be using a very cynical calculus to look good while not risking a drop of spilled tar sands sludge. But what about leadership? Courage? Ahh, the ignominy pf it all

  12. Stephen Gallagher says:

    Holy Smokes

    Do I love the Ventures. Try to learn these guitar licks just by listening to the music. Like trying to
    write like Leonard Cohen or any Irish poet of the 8th century.

    Thanks Warren

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*